Response to The difference between hearing and listening, by Pauline Oliveros

I found Pauline Oliveros’ message to be both simple and profound. Placing us in the soundscape of a cistern was a remarkable and effective opening; I understood instantly what it meant to expand our understanding of a composition to include the environment in which it was recorded. It’s something I don’t often think about while listening to contemporary, mainstream music. I’d argue effort has been taken to minimize that aspect entirely. But hearing an organ play in the loft of a grand church is undeniably different than hearing a recording done in a studio. Oliveros crystalizes the point that sometimes the environment is just as important to the tone and emotion of the piece as the piece itself.

The crowd at Pauline Oliveros’ talk listening to themselves.

Members of an orchestra performing John Cage’s 4’33” (ie, doing nothing)

At 7:45, Oliveros lets the audience sit for a moment, inviting them to notice what they can hear in their silence. I loved how simple and effective this moment was. Perhaps its a cliché comparison, but it reminded me of the infamous piece 4’33’ by John Cage, where the performer sits in silence in front of a live audience for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. While the meaning of this piece has been hotly debated, one interpretation that I’ve heard is that it reverses the focus from the performer to the audience; the crowd’s breathing, coughing, whispering and more that occurs in real-time becomes the real performance. Both of these examples underline the fact that there is in fact sound, even music, in silence. To fully appreciate this fact, we must break convention and truly listen to everything.